Another 2ndA Decision - NJ Superior Court

This is a discussion on Another 2ndA Decision - NJ Superior Court within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; NEW JERSEY COURT RECOGNIZES SECOND AMENDMENT AND HOLDS THAT IT TRUMPS GUN FORFEITURE LAW
| 03/19/07 | Evan Nappen, Attorney at Law
A New Jersey ...

Another 2ndA Decision - NJ Superior Court

NEW JERSEY COURT RECOGNIZES SECOND AMENDMENT AND HOLDS THAT IT TRUMPS GUN FORFEITURE LAW
| 03/19/07 | Evan Nappen, Attorney at Law

A New Jersey Superior Court has recognized the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and held that a citizen’s Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms cannot be involuntarily waived under a New Jersey firearms forfeiture law.

“The recognition of Second Amendment rights in New Jersey is long overdue,” said attorney Evan F. Nappen, whose law firm (including Richard V. Gilbert, Esq. and Louis P. Nappen, Esq.) represented appellant Dennis W. Peterson in the Warren County case. “In this appeal, the Second Amendment was applied to New Jersey via the Constitutional doctrine of fundamental fairness, overcoming a significant legal hurdle needed for the Federal Bill of Rights to apply to the State.”

This decision coincides with the recent Parker v. District of Columbia case, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down a decades-old handgun ban in Washington, D.C. on the ground that it violates the Second Amendment.

“The legal significance of the Second Amendment is finally being recognized by American courts,” Nappen continued, “and this New Jersey case is part of a growing trend in American jurisprudence.”

“In this appeal, the Second Amendment was applied to New Jersey via the Constitutional doctrine of fundamental fairness, overcoming a significant legal hurdle needed for the Federal Bill of Rights to apply to the State.”

One would think the only hurdle to the Constitution applying all the time would be the pile of puny, power-grabbing, bureaucratic bodies you've got to step over, in order to see the truth. Only in a tyrannical, fascist place can such questions even be asked.

Good news none the less. This adds to a definite trend of sane rulings and ... dare I say it! ... common sense.

"fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia,(D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)]
If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand

Don't forget the federal judge in Ohio coming down against employer prohibition against guns in cars!

Don't read too much into that ruling. He only ruled that the employer cannot prohibit employees from keeping guns in their cars when the cars are parked in a lot that is open to the general public. It is highly unlikely that any other court would consider that a relevant precedent in a case where the parking lot is company-owned and used only by employees.

I don't know about the 'victim' in this case, he sounds like he might have some issues- read page 3- 4 of this portion of this:http://www.evannappen.com/lawupdate1...s/peterson.pdf and he sounds pretty unstable. Add to that the history of him and his idiot buddies shooting up people's homes and cars with a pellet gun while he was driving them around in his car.

Don't read too much into that ruling. He only ruled that the employer cannot prohibit employees from keeping guns in their cars when the cars are parked in a lot that is open to the general public. It is highly unlikely that any other court would consider that a relevant precedent in a case where the parking lot is company-owned and used only by employees.

What I consider the important part of that ruling is that a business that denies an employee the right to possess a gun is basically committing a civil rights violation, specifically mentioning a lack of State involvement.

What I consider the important part of that ruling is that a business that denies an employee the right to possess a gun is basically committing a civil rights violation, specifically mentioning a lack of State involvement.

Don't confuse opinions that judges express with the rulings of the court. When writing the opinions in a case like this judges often say lots of stuff about what they were thinking and why they ruled the way they did. These things indicate how they might rule in another case, but they do not carry the weight of law and they do not establish precedents for other cases. The ruling in this case is only relevant to a company policy that prohibited an employee from having an otherwise-legal object in his car when that car was parked in a public parking lot and not being used for company business.

That means that this ruling would not prevent a company from prohibiting employees from having a gun in their car when it is parked in a company-owned, employee-only parking lot, and it would not prevent a company from prohibiting employees from having a gun in their car when they are using their car for company business.

Much as we tend to think that these judges rulings should establish fairly broad concepts of what is right and wrong, the truth is that most times the rulings are pretty narrow and only apply to very specifically equivalent situations.